On 23/04/07, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote: You don't think "Donate" link on the sidebar - for EVERYONE - and "Your [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising continued donations] keep Wikipedia running!" permanent anon sitenotice, are obvious? cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise

On 23/04/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: An open source one, of course, preferable under the GPL. The README should include email addresses so that users of other wiki software can still have their credit cards ransacked if they send in the details. - d.

I'm not opposed to having opt-out advertising on wikipedia.org, but I don't really understand why we would want to dilute our url structure and pagerank on *every* term by creating a weird commercial non-fork. If people are concerned about ads being bad then you shouldn't have ads anywhere. If people are concerned about making too much money (a legitimate concern I think) then just put ads on some pages, or throttle the ads with ads for non-profits, or with nothing. Google does this already now, I'm sure they would be willing to work with us. I really don't think it's a good idea to split the domains. URL authoritativeness is one of the key benefits of wikipedia, that it allows for a somewhat authoritative link to almost anything. I don't see the benefit of taking this away. Opt-out is better, heck opt-in is better. There is no reason to mess with the url. This issue is in addition to what Erik brings up, do we really want a distinction between the editable and not editable? Why? "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right after you navigate to a very similiar but not exact url"? Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]

On 4/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Maybe I shouldn't have used the term pagerank, I don't mean it in a google proprietary way, I mean it more as a general measure of URL authoritativeness. I like to think we are at least sort of concerned about the general organization of knowledge on the whole internet. When our potential users search google for, say, "Cholesterol", Wikipedia is in the top 5 results (#2 for me now). This is a good thing, because we offer a neutral factual article. I personally think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol is the *best* URL for that term. I'm not saying we should care about pagerank for all the normal reasons most websites do (revenue), we should care because we are doing a good job at making useful articles, and letting people read and access them is good. This is the case for thousands of terms, forking the URLs breaks this, and I don't see why we need to break this fundamental feature of the internet just to serve ads. I'm ambivalent on ads, I just don't like the idea of 2 URLs for the same content. Right, whoever :) Except at the same URL, which is all I am concerned about. Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]